Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[drakhe]

...Because no such weapon exists. If you want to play a small sized character I think it's only far to accept that you're out-numbered by medium sized characters. Thus there are not a lot of weapons available in your size. ...

If you're campaign world is built like that, OK, but you shouldn't generalize this statement. It's not a given that halflings (or any other non-human race) are automaticaly outnumbered, and therefore do not have access to weapons sized specificaly for them, made by them. I think generaly the opposite is true. In most campaign worlds there are fairly large communities for each of the major races. Or just simply look to Tolkien: Hobbiton & the Shire are Hobbit country! It stands to reason that they craft weapons fit for their own size.

And even if a certain race is outnumbered, any member of any race can, given enough cash/resources/..., ask a black-smith to create one, or simply make one (given resource, time, skills, etc offcourse). In the 13th warrior, The Banderas Arab takes a viking broadsword and re-shapes it into a weapon more suitable to what he is used to wield. (and as the viking states: "When you're done, can I give that knive to my daughter?")

 

[Psion]

I agree with that assessment: the 3.5E revision of the weapon size rules was to take into account larger races, and in so doing complicated the rules somewhat.

Precisely.

And I am more concerned about what rules come into play than what rules don't. When I run a game with lots of characters that aren't size S or M, I'll consider using 3.5 instead.

For the races I use a majority of the time, the 3.0 system works without worrying me with whether or not the halfling can use a human dagger without penalty.

 

[Nilhgualcm Leahcim]

Question: In the 3.5 handbook the text reads that rogues are proficient with all simple weapons. I don't see where the halfling rogue can use weapons that are human-sized without penalty. Where is this stated, or is it by omission?

 

[Umbran]

Why is the halfling penalised by not having a halfling-sized rapier to use?

For the exact same reason that he gets combat bonuses for being small, and a whole cartoad of skill bonuses, and save bonuses, and gets sidewise looks because his race is known for theivery - there's pluses and minuses to the various race choices. Compared to all the bennies the halfling gets, missing out on a dinky piercing weapon is hardly a catastrophe.

 

[MerricB]

Question: In the 3.5 handbook the text reads that rogues are proficient with all simple weapons. I don't see where the halfling rogue can use weapons that are human-sized without penalty. Where is this stated, or is it by omission?

It isn't. In 3E, characters could wield weapons of any size without penalty. So, if your Wizard was lucky enough to find a Large Dagger, go for it! You've got a wizard with a greatsword! (that's 3E terminology, btw)

In 3.5E, a halfling rogue can only use small weapons without penalty. If the halfling picks up a medium (human) dagger, he can wield it with the dagger proficiency at a -2 penalty. I really advise using the Weapon Equivalency variant rules here (see DMG pg 27) that mean that he could also use it as a small shortsword without penalty (assuming he has proficiency in shortsword).

Cheers!

 

[takyris]

Actually, in an arguthread not too long ago, I tried to make the point that realism is not the opposite of simplicity. Realism is the opposite of cinematism, and granularity is the opposite of simplicity. (And when I say "tried to make the point", I mean "hypothesized", not "made the point but people were too foolish to understand me".)

You can make a very realistic system that uses a 1d6 roll, plus your bonuses in something, to determine what happens. It's realistic -- it's just not very precise, not very granular, and while the result of a guy with X years of training trying to do Y might statistically map very well to the real-life odds (making it realistic), it's not going to have the nitty-gritty detail many gamers want. D&D is by nature cinematic because people get more hit points -- it can be argued that it's abstract, and I often do argue just that, but really, at high levels, D&D people are just good at not getting seriously hurt by that sword, and in reality, people don't generally get that good. It's meant to be a model of a fun-swordfights fantasy movie, which by nature makes it cinematic.

I think that in many ways, D&D is trying to be both granular and cinematic -- and while the two aren't mutually exclusive, they are more difficult. It's hard to come up with viable rules for exactly how falling should work when people can toss fireballs around all the time without trouble. If your world works in the magical "No square-cube problem" way, then different weapon sizes might not work or matter -- a giant's dagger can be a human's longsword or a halfling's greatsword, but if your world works in a more realistic way, in which dragons fly only because of magic and giants have to be insanely tough and strong in order not to collapse under their own weight, then, just as a human would have trouble using a six-foot pocketknife in a fight, a halfling shouldn't be able to use a dagger. The line between where it's nitpicking and where it's worth it is a fine one, and it varies by campaign.

 

[Quicken]

It isn't. In 3E, characters could wield weapons of any size without penalty. So, if your Wizard was lucky enough to find a Large Dagger, go for it! You've got a wizard with a greatsword! (that's 3E terminology, btw)

Ughhh.. Why are you going on with this again? As I stated before in 3E there is no such thing as a "Large Dagger". A greatsword is a greatsword is a greatsword. I've already explained this and stated you cannot get your wizard mysteriously wielding some massive weapon he insists is a dagger.

The same goes for Hong stating some weapons are "Upsized". I fail to see where this happens. Either way each side has their valid points that both sides recognised. The 3.5E rules make it easier to handle unusually sized creatures. The 3E rules are much simpler (no Weapon Equivalency variant rules required).

 

[MerricB]

Ughhh.. Why are you going on with this again? As I stated before in 3E there is no such thing as a "Large Dagger". A greatsword is a greatsword is a greatsword. I've already explained this and stated you cannot get your wizard mysteriously wielding some massive weapon he insists is a dagger.

Yes You Can.

Have a look at the Arms and Equipment Guide, Savage Species and the Monster Manual.

Terms like "Gargantuan Warhammer" turn up. "Huge longbow", "Gargantuan greatsword", " Huge greatsword", "Huge greataxe".

The Arms and Equipment Guide and Savage Species actually give the rules - to create a medium dagger, you get a tiny dagger and increase its size from tiny to small to medium, and increase its damage likewise.

Cheers!

 

[Dyntheos]

would not a "large dagger" have a proportionally increased grip making it difficult to wield for a medium creature? A greatsword is defined by the length of the blade, and a large dagger would not even closly resemble a greatsword in dimensions. 3.5 is simpler and more precise.

 

[AdvntrGuy]

A&E Guide, Savage Species

Merric -

When A&E Guide and Savage Species were coming out, I wrote Andy Collins asking if 3.5 rules were incorpated in these products becuase the were releasing post-3.5 announcement but pre-3.5 release. I'll try to dig up the post, but his answer was yes. Regarding being able to have a "Large Dagger" in 3.0,

Yes You Can. Have a look at the Arms and Equipment Guide, Savage Species and the Monster Manual.

I think your assumption that these two products are 3.0 is faulty. These are clearly transitional products rules-wise. Savage Species monster class creation is clearly on the way to 3.5 Monster Manual monsters, and though I'm less sure, A&E Guide is on the way toward 3.5 weapon rules. If I were putting them into one category or another, I'd put them both into 3.5.

I'll post later if I can find Andy's response.

AG